…and the scientific method:
…how can criticisms of sceptics as politically motivated be squared with science’s commitment to findings always being provisional and open to challenge? At what point can we judge that a scientific question moves from a position of “doubt” to being “settled”?
Both climate change sceptics and advocates of climate policy see this question as important; sharing a faith that scientific evidence is the basis for public policy. However, such a faith omits the possibility that science is not suited to such a role, and that “solving” climate change does not flow linearly from agreement on the science. The attentions of sceptics may or may not be improving the practice and knowledge of climate science. However, if sceptics’ never-ending audit is really damaging policy, that may be more a reflection of an overly scientised policy process than a basis for denying them a voice in debate.
Yup.
We are supposed to question everything in a scientific realm, until everyone in that branch of science has tested and agrees or has tested and disagrees that the originator had the answer right.
However, IF we question ANYTHING said by anyone on the Left, they break out the MSM attack machine, because thumb screws are currently illegal as a form of punishment. And it’s not just science, it’s politics also, and even though most on the Left are Secular Humanists, they want to run religious debate. With the possible exception of Islam.
Muslims shall not be mentioned in a negative manner, is the Third Commandment of the Left.
Because they will blow you up if you do. Bullies always pick on someone who won’t fight back.
I registered at the Guardian so I could comment during the St. Trayvon debacle and have been having fun there ever since.